[harrisonjackson]

One of least effective ways to argue your case is by pointing to other apps that have the same violations. I say that having submitted 50+ apps across various categories and dealing with thousands of app review exchanges to get them released. You can find apps that violate all sorts of guidelines and laws and it is super frustrating when yours gets blocked but it is part of the business.

Did they slip by a reviewer that didn't care? Did they use their "VC" illuminati connections? Are they such a big player the rules don't apply? It doesn't really matter or have anything to do with getting YOUR app released and the reviewer you are talking to will most likely ignore that completely.

Your best bet is to remove or change the mechanic if possible, resubmit, and then add it back in during a future update if you feel strongly about it.

It is possible those other apps have something that allows them to keep it... and by communicating nicely and earnestly with your reviewer you might find a way to skirt the rules, if a way exists. For us, it was frequently tweaking copy or TOS or other minor changes that allowed us to release an app with only superficial changes that the initial review made it seem like we were totally screwed. I do get the instinct to just say FU though.

[gorkish]

It might not be very effective or in the author's best interest to make this point to Google. But my assumption is that the author has already made that attempt and now, after that remedy has failed has decided to make an open appeal.

It is perfectly proper to make this point to HN readers and the general public who know nothing about the situation. It absolutely is relevant that Google do not appear to be applying their policies in a consistent and fair manner and as such are haphazardly fulfilling their consumer promise of operating "safe and secure" app stores.

Spilling conflict into the public sphere is the new way to "turbo" unreasonable disagreements these days. Everyone does it from cable and satellite companies down to individuals getting shit on by a corporate behemoth. Though I find it distasteful, so long as it keeps working, people will keep doing it.

[charlieyu1]

On the other hand, it is the most effective to bring public awareness to a bullshit policy.

[Brian_K_White]

What other things that are wrong and avoidable (being acts of humans rather than acts of nature) do you advocate just tolerating without even so much as reporting of discussing?

Animals must live with the environment as it is. Humans modify their environment to suit them.

It's ok to be fatalist for yourself. There is no valid reason to try to tell anyone else to be.

[harrisonjackson]

I think it is great they wrote this post and are bringing attention to the problem. I wish someone had told me all of this before I submitted my first app. It helps to know this is an issue you might run into and it is not the end of the process and it does not mean your app won’t get approved.

Rallying devs and their community of users is worthwhile. My advice was more for how to respond and handle the review process internally with google and Apple based on what has actually worked ime ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[echelon]

This only happened because App Stores are a central point of failure (and control and undue taxation).

Tell your legislators that Google and Apple need to open up to web installs. To make them first class, with no hurdles and no scare tactics.

In order to help facilitate this, open up devices to other stores from the moment of device activation - Google Play should be on iPhone, App Store should be on Android, etc. And build proper first-party browser support for "this website has an app, click to install".

If a customer knows about you and wants you, they should be able to grab you from your website. Or another marketplace.

The App Store system as it stands today is perverse and draconian.

[mcpackieh]

> Tell your legislators that Google [...] need to open up to web installs.

You're getting your talking points crossed. Google's Android permits you to install apps from third party sources, and in fact permits the operation of third party appstores. What you mention is a problem with Apple, not Google. This capability isn't just academic, I install most of my apps from F-Droid and use Play Store for only 3 or 4 apps.

And what would you have legislators do in this case? Scold Google for respecting the laws of other countries by choosing not to distribute apps which violate those laws in those countries (but continuing to sell the app in any country in which it isn't banned)? If this guy wants to sell an app in Saudi Arabia, he should make an app that's legal in Saudi Arabia, or distribute it himself if he wants to flaunt those laws. There is no rational, moral or legal obligation for Google to flaunt Saudi Arabian laws on his behalf.

[yorwba]

Google is already open to web installs, in the sense that any user who wants to play the game can download the apk and install it on most Android phones without issue.

But that doesn't mean people will actually do so. E.g. if most installs stem from Google promoting the game on the Play Store, using only a website also means losing out on that free publicity. (Or not-free, since Google takes a cut.)